Ike Perlmutter Takes His Case To The Florida Supreme Court

Posted in: Comics, Comics Publishers, Current News, Ike Perlmutter, Marvel Comics | Tagged: florida, trump

Former Marvel Comics Chairman Ike Perlmutter takes his case for punitive danages to the Florida Supreme Court.

Bleeding Cool has covered at length the legal battle between former Marvel Entertainment Chairman and multi-billionaire Ike Perlmutter and his wife, Laura Perlmutter, against Canadian tycoon Harold Peerenboom for ten years. Beginning with a disagreement over who should run the tennis court in their private Palm Beach residential area, it blew up into allegations of hate mail campaigns and false flag operations, as well as DNA theft, and the staff of Marvel Comics being used for opposition research purposes. Recently, libel suits placed by Perenboom against the Perlmutters, which included the intervention of the FBI, were dismissed, and it looked like this matter was coming to an end, with the Perlmutters winning. But there were lawsuits over the lawsuits. Three years ago, Laura Perlmutter filed a lawsuit against a law firm for “maliciously prosecuting a lawsuit” that claimed she was behind a hate-mail campaign. This has been denied by the firm.

And now the Florida Supreme Court will hear a claim by Ike Perlmutter against Harold Peerenboom for punitive damages over the acquisition of Laura and Ike Perlmutter’s DNA, used to try and prove their involvement with a hate mail campaign, but was unsuccessful. The Fourth District Court of Appeal ruled against Perlmutter being able to pursue this after the original case judge allowed it, but the Florida Supreme Court will now review that appeal decision. Ike Perlmutter’s January 10, 2024 filing contains the Court’s En Banc Opinion, which includes a background of how the matter got to that point:

The Perlmutters and Peerenboom lived in a residential community in which a dispute arose over retaining the community tennis instructor. The dispute resulted in the tennis instructor filing a defamation suit to which Peerenboom was eventually added as a defendant. Peerenboom notified his insurance carrier, Federal, about the tennis instructor’s defamation suit. Federal designated Douberley’s law firm as Federal’s in-house counsel to defend Peerenboom in the tennis instructor’s suit.
During the tennis instructor’s suit, Peerenboom’s family, friends, neighbors, and colleagues received a series of “hate mail” letters falsely accusing Peerenboom of child molestation and murder. Peerenboom suspected the Perlmutters were involved in the hate mail because, a year earlier, Isaac Perlmutter had circulated negative news articles about Peerenboom. Believing he was the victim of a crime, Peerenboom reported the hate mail to law enforcement and postal investigators and hired private investigators to develop information about who had sent the hate mail.
As part of that investigation, Peerenboom and Douberley surreptitiously obtained the Perlmutters’ DNA to compare against DNA obtained from the hate mail. Peerenboom then reported to the police and media that the DNA results had linked the Perlmutters to the hate mail campaign.
Peerenboom later filed a complaint against the Perlmutters raising various causes of action related to the sending of the hate mail.
Upon learning that Peerenboom had surreptitiously tested their DNA, the Perlmutters asserted a counterclaim against the Appellants. In their counterclaim, the Perlmutters alleged conversion and civil theft of their genetic information; abuse of process for issuing subpoenas upon them for improper purposes; defamation for false reports of their involvement in sending the letters; invasion of privacy for the surreptitious collection, testing, and reporting of their DNA; and civil conspiracy to defame them and falsely implicate them in criminal conduct. 2
The Perlmutters’ intentional tort counts relied generally upon section 760.40, Florida Statutes (2013), which at the time pertinently stated:
(a) Except for purposes of criminal prosecution, except for purposes of determining paternity as provided in s. 409.256 or s. 742.12(1), and except for purposes of acquiring specimens as provided in s. 943.325, DNA analysis may be performed only with the informed consent of the person to be tested, and the results of such DNA analysis, whether held by a public or private entity, are the exclusive property of the person tested, are confidential, and may not be disclosed without the consent of the person tested. . . .
(b) A person who violates paragraph (a) is guilty of a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.
§ 760.40(2), Fla. Stat. (2013).2
The Perlmutters later moved to amend their counterclaims to seek punitive damages from the Appellants. The Appellants responded in opposition. After a hearing on the Perlmutters’ motions to amend, the trial court entered the separate orders, now on appeal, granting the motions to amend as to each of the Appellants.

Now, the Florida Supreme Court will weigh in next year about how far Ike Perlmutter, who just celebrated his 79th birthday, can take this matter. The Perlmutters also donated $25 million to Trump’s recent Presidential run. We look forward to seeing how this plays out.

Stay up-to-date and support the site by following Bleeding Cool on Google News today!